I quit uploading to here because of that sort of problem. I link to my account on Flickr instead. I suspect that the site re-makes the image file with a higher level of compression. Are the files the same size (Kbyte) as the ones you uploaded?

Since some people seems to like the tonality in my pictures, I thought I'd share some of the secrets of how I get there.

First of all, with snow present in the scene, correct exposure is quite important. The contrast is often at least two stops wider than without the snow. I usually expose the snow at zone VII, which means two stops over middle gray. Three stops plus is OK too, but craves a bit more work.

I'm not that good at developing yet, so I'll skip that part. But try to get medium contrast if you can.

Now the most important part; the scanning! Use the full color mode for positive (slide) film, since it is often the only way to take advantage of the scanners full bit depth and DR. The result is a very dull, negative image.
In Photoshop (or whatever you got), scrap red and green channel, leaving only blue. This is because the scanner optics have such a small aperture that diffraction will soften red and green more than blue due to their wavelengths.
Invert the image and squash the DR out with levels, so that you've only got a little bit of space to the right and left of the histogam.

Now it's time for the curve! And I'll show the result before explaing further:

This was a tough one, so the final image isn't that good. But look at the curve now; the steep parts indicates locally high contrast, which is present in three separate tonal ranges. #1 is in the shadows, to get structure in the door, #2 is in the midtones, to get structure and tone in the wall, and #3 is in the highlights, maintaining tonality in the snow.

You can't apply this recipy to whatever picture, but if you understand what has happened to each of the tonal ranges, you can do similar things with any image. Let the curve be steep only where contrast is to be enhanced. This way you can have full control over the tonal properties, far better than when printing on paper with an enlarger without doing any masking and such.
It takes some time, but it's generally worth it very much, compared to the realively "flat but contrasty" results that the scanner software auto modes gives.

I quit uploading to here because of that sort of problem. I link to my account on Flickr instead. I suspect that the site re-makes the image file with a higher level of compression. Are the files the same size (Kbyte) as the ones you uploaded?

Steve

I may do the same. I see that Flickr is the most popular with others here, and I sense that Photobucket may be changing my sharpness a bit, too.

I may do the same. I see that Flickr is the most popular with others here, and I sense that Photobucket may be changing my sharpness a bit, too.

Flickr will slightly alter your photos too, but it's pretty minor. The smaller sizes used to get sharpened quite a bit, but I haven't noticed it much lately; could have been in my head. I've also read it suggested to upload 1024 wide images, but for the life of me, can't recall why.

Retro 100 Ilfosol 3 1+9 ETRSI w/ MC40 f4 probably @ f11, but it was so long back i don't remember
the white dots in the black are lights from inside (think i got all the dust) a shot of the Loathed/Loved new Royal Ontario Museum addition (I'm of 2 minds myself)

This film scratches if you look at it the wrong way and curls like crazy, took over 2 weeks of flattening to make it reasonably scannable
Glad i don't have any left

Retro 100 Ilfosol 3 1+9 ETRSI w/ MC40 f4 probably @ f11, but it was so long back i don't remember
the white dots in the black are lights from inside (think i got all the dust) a shot of the Loathed/Loved new Royal Ontario Museum addition (I'm of 2 minds myself)

This film scratches if you look at it the wrong way and curls like crazy, took over 2 weeks of flattening to make it reasonably scannable
Glad i don't have any left